This is an appeal by the applicant and appellant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, denying the registration of the larger portion of parcel No. 1 (Exhibit A of the petitioner), marked by the letters A, B, and C on the plan, Exhibit 1, of the Government.

One Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently gained possession of a considerable tract of land located in the municipality of San Jose, Province  of Nueva Ecija, in the year 1882.  He took advantage of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, to obtain a possessory information title to the land, registered as such on February 8,  1896.  Parcel No. 1, included within the limits of the possessory information title of Restituto Romero, was sold in  February, 1907, to Cornelio Ramos, the instant petitioner, and his  wife Ambrosia Salamanca.

Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title registered.  Opposition was entered by the Director of Lands on the ground that Ramos had not acquired a good title from the Spanish government and by the Director of Forestry on the ground that the  first parcel was forest land.  The trial  court agreed  with the objectors and excluded parcel No. 1 from registration.  So much for the facts.

As to the law, the principal argument of the Solicitor- General is based on the provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law and of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, commonly known as the Maura Law.   The Solicitor-General would emphasize that for land  to come under the protective aegis  of the Maura Law, it must have been shown that the land was cultivated for six years previously, and that it was not land  which pertained to the "zonas forestates." As proof that the land was, even as long ago as the years 1894 to 1896, forestal and not agricultural in nature is the fact that there are yet found thereon trees from 50 to 80 years of age.

We do not stop to decide this contention, although it might be possible, following the doctrine laid down by the United States Supreme Court with  reference to Mexican and Spanish grants within the United States, where some recital is claimed to be false, to say that the possessory information, apparently having taken cognizance  of the requisites for title, should not now be disturbed.  (Hancock  vs.  McKinney  [1851], 7 Tex., 192; Hornsby and Roland vs. United States [1869], 10 Wall., 224,) It is sufficient, as will later appear, merely to notice that the pre-decessor in interest to the petitioner at least held this tract of land under color of title.

Subsection 6 of section 54,  of Act No.  926, entitled The Public Land Law, as amended by Act No. 1908, reads as follows:

"6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in interest  have been in the  open, continuous, exclusive, and  notorious  possession  and  occupation of agricultural public lands, as  defined by said Act of Congress of July first,  nineteen hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of ownership except as  against the Government, for a period of ten years next preceding the  twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and four, except when prevented by war or force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and to have  received the same, and shall  be entitled to a certificate of title to such land under the provisions of this chapter."

There are two parts  to  the above quoted  subsection which must be  discussed.   The first  relates to the open, continuous,  exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of what, for present purposes, can be conceded to be agricultural public land, under a bona fide  claim of ownership.

Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature  as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.  Relative to actuality of possession, it is admitted that the petitioner has cultivated only  about  one fourth  of  the entire tract. This is graphically portrayed  by Exhibit  1 of the Government, following:

(see image on vol. 39,  page 179)

The question at once arises:  Is the actual occupancy of a part of the land described in the instrument giving color of title sufficient to give title to the  entire  tract of land?

The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer.  The general  rule is that the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of ownership of all  is a constructive possession  of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another.  (Barr vs. Gratz's Heirs [1819], 4 Wheat, 213; Ellicott vs. Pearl [1836], 10 Pet, 412; Smith vs. Gale  [1892], 144 U. S., 509.)  Of course,  there  are a  number of qualifications  to the  rule, one particularly  relating to the size of the tract in controversy with reference to the  portion actually in possession of the claimant   It is here only necessary to apply the general rule.

The claimant has  color of title; he acted in good faith; and he  has had open, peaceable, and notorious possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to apprise the  community and the world that the land was for his enjoyment. (See  arts.  446, 448, Civil Code.)  Possession  in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can  be said that he is in possession.  Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the requirements of the law  on the supposition that the premises consisted of agricultural public land.

The second division  of the law requires consideration of the term "agricultural public land.  " The  law affirms that the phrase is defined by the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902,  known as the Philippine Bill.  Turning  to the Philippine  Bill, we find in sections  13 to 18  thereof that three classes of land are mentioned.   The first is variously denominated "public land" or "public domain," the  second "mineral land," and the third "timber land."  Section  18 of the Act of Congress comes nearest to a  precise  definition, when it  makes  the  determination of  whether the land is more valuable for agricultural or for forest uses the test of its  character.

Although these sections of the Philippine Bill have come before the courts on numerous occasions, what was said in the case of Jones vs. Insular Government ([1906],  6 Phil., 122),  is still true, namely: '"the meaning of these sections is not clear and it is difficult to give to them a construction that  will be  entirely free  from objection." In the case  which gave most serious consideration to the subject  (Mapa vs.  Insular  Government  [1908],  10  Phil., 175),  it was found-that there does exist in  the Act of Congress a  definition of the phrase "agricultural public lands."  It was  said that the phrase "agricultural public lands" as  used in Act No.  926 means ''those public lands acquired  from Spain which  are  not timber  or mineral lands."

The idea would appear to be to  determine, by exclusion, if the land  is forestal or  mineral in nature  and,  if not so found,  to consider it to be agricultural land.  Here, again, Philippine law is not very helpful.  For instance, section 1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917 provides: "For the purposes of this chapter, 'public forest'  includes, except  as otherwise  specially  indicated, all  unreserved public land, including nipa  and mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever character."   This definition of "public forest," it will be  noted, is merely "for the purposes of this chapter."  A little further on, section 1827 provides: "Lands in public forests, not including forest reserves, upon  the certification of the Director of Forestry that said  lands are  better adapted and  more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes and not required by the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be declared by the Department Head to be agricultural lands." With reference to the last section,  there is no certification of the Director of Forestry in the record, as  to  whether this land is better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.

The lexicographers define "forest" as "a large  tract of land covered with  a natural growth of trees and underbrush; a large  wood."  The authorities  say that the word "forest" has a significant,  not an  insignificant meaning, and that it does not embrace land only partly woodland.

It is a tract of land covered with trees, usually of considerable extent.   (Higgins vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 114 N. Y. Supp., 262; People vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 110 N. Y. Supp., 512.)

The foresters say that  no legal definition of "forest"  is practicable or useful.  B. H. Baden-Powell, in his work on Forest Law of India, states  as follows:

"Every definition of a forest that can be framed for legal  purposes will be found either to exclude some  cases to which the law ought to apply, or on the other hand, to include some with which the law ought not to interfere.   It may be necessary, for example, to take under the law a tract of perfectly barren land which at present has neither trees, brushwood, nor grass on it, but which in the course of time it is hoped will be 'reboise;' but any definition wide enough to take in all such lands, would also take in much that was not wanted.   On the  other  hand, the definition,  if framed with reference to tree-growth,  might (and indeed would be almost  sure  to)  include a garden, shrubbery, orchard,  or vineyard,  which it was  not  designed to deal with."

B. E. Fernow, in his work on the Economics of Forestry, states as follows:

"A forest in the sense in which we use the term, as an economic factor, is by no means a mere collection  of trees, but an organic whole  in  which all parts, although apparently heterogeneous, jumbled  together by accident  as  it were  and apparently unrelated,  bear a  close relation to each other and are as interdependent as any  other beings and conditions in nature."

The Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands has said:

"During the time of the passage of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902,  this question of forest  and agricultural lands was beginning to receive some attention and  it is clearly shown in  section 18  of the above  mentioned  Act; it leaves to  the Bureau of Forestry the certification  as to what lands are for agricultural or  forest uses.  Although the Act states timber lands, the Bureau has in its administration since the passage of this act construed this term to mean forest lands in the sense of what  was necessary to protect, for the public good; waste lands  without a tree have been  declared more  suitable  |for  forestry in many instances  in the past.   The term  'timber', gs used in England and in the United  States in the past has been applied to wood suitable for construction purposes but with  the increase in  civilization and the application of new methods every plant producing wood has some useful purpose and the term timber lands  is generally  thought  of  as synonymous with  forest lands or lands producing  wood,  or able to produce  wood, if agricultural  crops  on the same land will  not bring the financial return  that timber will or if the same land is needed for protection purposes.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

"The laws in the  United States recognize the necessity of technical advice of duly appointed boards and leave it in the hands of these boards to decide what lands are more valuable  for forestry purposes  or  for agricultural purposes.

"In the Philippine Islands this policy is followed to  as great an extent as allowable under the law.   In many cases, in the  opinion of the Bureau  of  Forestry,  lands without a single tree on them are  considered as true forest land. For  instance, mountain sides which are too  steep for cultivation under ordinary practice and which, if cultivated, under  ordinary practice would  destroy the big natural resource of  the soil, by  washing, is considered by this Bureau as forest land and in time would be reforested.   Of course,  examples exist  in  the Mountain  Province  where steep hillsides have been terraced and intensive  cultivation practiced but even then  the mountain people  are very careful not to destroy forests or other vegetative cover which they from experience have found protect their water supply.  Certain chiefs have lodged protests with the Government against other tribes on  the  opposite  side  of the mountain cultivated by them,  in order to prevent other tribes from cutting timber or destroy cover guarding their source of water for irrigation.

"Dr.  M. S.  Shaler,  formerly Dean of  the Lawrence Scientific School, remarked that if mankind could not devise and enforce ways dealing  with the earth, which will preserve this source of life 'we must look forward to the time, remote  it may be, yet equally discernible,  when our kin having  wasted its great  inheritance will fade from the earth because of  the ruin  it has accomplished.'

"The method employed  by  the Bureau  of Forestry in making inspection of lands, in order to determine whether they are more adapted for agricultural or forest purposes, by a technical and duly trained personnel on the different phases of the conservation of natural resources, is based upon a  previously prepared set of questions in which the different characters  of the land under inspection are discussed, namely:

"Slope of land: Level; moderate; steep; very steep.

"Exposure: North; South; East; West.

"Soil: Clay; sandy loam; sand; rocky; very rocky.

"Character of soil cover: Cultivated, grass land, brush land, brush land and timber mixed,  dense forest.

"If cultivated, state crops being grown and approximate number  of  hectares   under   cultivation.  (Indicate  on sketch.)

"For  growth of what agricultural products is this land suitable?

"State what portion of the tract  is wooded, name of important  timber  species and estimate of stand in cubic meters  per hectare, diameter  and  percentage of  each species.

"If the land is covered with timber, state whether there is  public land suitable for agriculture in  vicinity, which is not covered with timber.

"Is  this land more valuable for agricultural than  for forest purposes?  (State reasons in full.)

"Is  this land  included  or adjoining any proposed  or established forest reserve or communal forest?  Description and ownership of improvements.

"If the land is claimed under private ownership, give the name  of  the claimant,  his place of residence,  and state briefly (if necessary on a separate sheet) the grounds upon which he bases his claim.

"When the inspection  is made on a parcel of public land which has been applied for, the  corresponding  certificate is forwarded to the Director of Lands; if it is made on a privately claimed  parcel for which the issuance of a title is requested from  the Court of Land Registration,  and  the inspection shows the land to be more adapted for forest purposes,  then the Director of Forestry requests the  Attorney-General to file an opposition, sending him all data collected during the inspection and  offering him the  forest officer as a witness.

"It should be kept  in mind that the  lack of personnel of this Bureau, the limited time intervening between the notice for the trial of an expediente of land and the day of the trial, and the difficulties in communications as well as the distance of the land in question greatly hinder  the handling of this work.

"In  the case of lands claimed as private property, the Director of Forestry, by means of his delegate the examining officer, submits before the court all evidence referring to the  present forest condition of the land, so that the court may compare them with the alleged right by the claimant. Undoubtedly,, when the claimant presents a title  issued  by the proper authority or evidence  of his right to the land showing that he complied with the requirements of the law, the forest certificate does not affect him in the least as such land should not be considered as a part of the public domain; but when the alleged right is merely that of possession, then the public or private character of the parcel is open to discussion and  this  character  should be established  not simply on the alleged right of the claimant but on the sylvical condition and soil characteristics of the land, and by comparison between  this area,  or different  previously occupied areas, and those areas  which  still preserve their primitive character."

Either way we look  at  this question we encounter  difficulty.   Indubitably, there should be conservation of the natural resources of the Philippines.  The prodigality of the spendthrift who squanders his substance for the pleasure of the fleeting moment must be restrained for the less spectacular but surer policy which protects Nature's wealth for future generations.  Such is the wise stand of our Government as represented by the Director of Forestry who, with the Forester for. the Government of the United States, believes in "the control of nature's powers by man  for his own good." On the other hand, the presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof, that land is  agricultural in nature.  One very apparent  reason  is that  it is  for  the good  of  the Philippine  Islands to have the large public domain come under private ownership.  Such is  the  natural  attitude of the sagacious citizen.

If in this instance, we give  judicial sanction to a private claim, let it be noted that the Government,  in the long run of cases, has its remedy.  Forest reserves of public land can be established as provided by law.  When  the claim of the citizen and the  claim of the Government as to a particular piece of property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate that the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry should submit to  the court convincing proof that the land is not more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.  Great consideration, it may be  stated,  should, and undoubtedly will  be, paid by the courts to the opinion of the technical expert who speaks with  authority on forestry matters.  But a  mere formal opposition on the  part  of the  Attorney-General for  the Director of Forestry, unsupported by satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from giving  title to the claimant.

We hold that the petitioner and appellant  has proved a title to the entire tract  of land  for which  he  asked registration, under the provisions of subsection  6, of section  54, of  Act No. 926, as amended  by Act No.  1908, with reference to the Philippine Bill and the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894,  and his  possessory information.

Judgment is  reversed  and the lower court  shall  register in the name of the applicant the entire tract in parcel  No. 1,  as described in  plan  Exhibit  A,  without special finding as to  costs.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres,  Johnson, Street, and  Fisher, JJ., concur.